Evaluation of Decision to Close and Closure Process It seems as though FBPS was trying to fulfill the more popular of the Six PESTEL factors, technology. The launch of its International Baccalaureate Programs seemed promising; however, it came at the worst possible economic time. The US economic recession of 2005 took toll on not only the FBPS campuses but other reputable schools surrounding it. This indication quickly started impacting the FBPS organization. The closure of several schools and the announcement of others not continuing with certain academics.

The fact that only two campuses would remain open—the Richmond and the North Richmond campuses—rankled parents, and the fact that news of the closing of the Staunton campus school came after the enrollment deadline at other neighboring schools was a shock that parents simply were not inclined to accept. The FBPS assured parents that the closures were not the result of finances—but Moody’s indicated otherwise as the credit rating of the school had decline to Caa2. The school was essentially denying its financial state to the parents and failing to communicate effectively with them in advance of closings so that families could make plans for their children accordingly. As Iverson and McPhee (2002) note, a school’s leaders must be true to the “communicative character of knowledge”—and the leaders of FBPS simply were not.

Social Responsibilities and Impact on Stakeholders

As a for-profit school, it had a duty to provide returns to investors—and yet by mishandling its transition period, it essentially destroyed its reputation and drove families away and back into the arms of the original founders of the school who became the competition. Those who had invested in the school were going to lose, especially as Moody’s downgraded the business’s credit rating, which would impact its ability to secure new loans at a decent rate (John, Lynch & Puri, 2003).
Students were also going to be left out in the cold. The FBPS had a social responsibility to ensure that their education could continue—and yet instead of alerting parents ahead of time so that arrangements could be made, the school bluffed them and said that no closings would happen. This in spite of the fact that parents had already received an email alert: clearly the FBPS had no intention of showing its hand, regardless of how it impacted students.

Parents realized the duplicity at the heart of the school’s new management—and that is why they began to leave in droves. None wanted to stick around and continue to be abused by a school that had no regard for their hardship, their children’s futures, or even their own investors. The school’s management had not the faintest idea of what it meant to be honest.…